Topic: Is banning weapons such a good thing? - page 3. (Read 1196 times)

Yes said, banning of weapons won't go good in short or in the future. There are few countries that are highly into the restriction of gun. Till date what we see in using weapons is big, mostly on the western nations it has made a big destruction to human life.

We have a guns regulation here in Russia, but it's still possible to buy Kalashnikov without license and in some areas it's not even punished anyhow. In southern or eastern regions almost any family has at least one unlicensed gun in posession.

Banning weapons simply doesn't work.

^^^ Sounds like the government.     

Yes and No.

Typical generalization:

Yes, *generic comment* *to avoid lost of life, prevent war, contribute to peace and etc.*
No, (Since it's so impossible to ban these things) It will only create a much more chaotic underworld trading. (Man is born greedy), if this weapons are banned technically there would be people or group people will took advantage of the situation. Given that even the police and military will be useless, without these weapons.

Realistic view, if this is pushed in the present year. Then terrorists/bad guys can definitely annihilate a country, why? These people will not abide any law/s, rule/s, policies and etc. (whatever it's called).

It's not as simple as you make it sound. The law banned:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

The weapons ban did NOTHING of any importance except to be a pain in the a$$ to law abiding people.

So, if you were intent on killing people with a gun you were still able to buy a semi-automatic rifle.

Secondly quite a few of those incidents did not include banned weapons so should not be considered as part of the statistics for or against the ban.

Weapons have a multifaceted character. Weapons can, for example, be considered as a method or as an objective itself. It could be cool to hold a weapon, this is as an objective, because it is a passion. As a mean, you can hold a weapon for killing or to defend yourself against others.

As statistics we can see

• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents

• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents

• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents

These statistics show the following idea that as an pragmatic effect, indeed, mass shooting has been reduced. I consider the law of arms to be influenced by the tradition of the place where the law is implemented. The number of weapons-related crimes is 25 times higher in the US than in any other developed country.

Weapon is for responsible individuals only. We all know that we are using weapons for good purposes. It depends on the society on how laws are implemented regarding weapon handlings. Banning depends on the situation such as during elections and other events wherein security is a must.

So, you don't have a right to defend yourself.  And, in order to be safe from weapons you are willing to be at the mercy of criminals and the government. And, you're of the opinion that the government always has the interests of individuals citizens at heart.

I think that people are safe in many countries.

But we have witnessed horrors inflicted by governments in the very recent past.

The Russian revolution, the starvation of the Ukrainians, the gulags.
Hitler
The Chinese cultural revolution.
Pol Pot
The Kim family in NK
The Iranian ayatollahs
...

And the list goes on.

Sorry. I'm not willing to disarm.

The law should fit the situation depend on society. If a high educate society, and most people are mental stable and less chance use weapon to harm other people, then might be weapon introduce doesn’t matter, but if a sociality with low education, high percentage violent and aggressive behaviour, then allow weapon flow around and easy to access would lead to chaos and dangerous. there should be mental financial and many test before own a dangerous weapon, if there a good reason and the person can pass all the test, then they could have gun for a year, the test need to repeat after a year time, gun in good people hand can protect us, but in bad people hand can kill us.

Instead of using a weapon that can people just make a tranquilizer weapon to avoid crime and also it can protect you if your life is in danger there are many tools now a days and Im sure that Deadly weapon is not the key to prevent crime. Banning the weapon in country will help the community and lower the crimes.

But even stopping the transaction of weapon in a country in depends on the people how they face it democratic or bloody to solve they're own problems.

Most of the focus is a mistaken understanding about the word "banning."

If everybody banned weapons, we would have relative peace around the whole world.

"Banning" weapons really means that some people (usually government) are trying to use weapons to force other people to not have them.

Good people will try to obey government. Bad people will always thwart government as much as they can.

Aren't the people self governing? Let people who want to ban guns ban them for themselves. Let people who want to ban the banning keep their guns. The people are self governing.

Just like they aren't scared of anything else, but at least owning a gun gives you a chance. When you get assaulted by a psychotic maniac he will try to kill you anyway. If he finds a rock he'll keep hitting you with it until you're dead. What would you rather have for defense? A knife or a gun?



It's estimated that there's about 20 guns per 100 people in France. This means that 20% of yellow vests have access to guns. That's a lot. Why aren't they shooting? Why aren't they killing the police? It is your understanding of the situation that is wrong.
For instance, that migrant who chopped off a guy's head in the street didn't have a gun. He didn't need one.
Or that guy:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/766184/migrant-attack-germany-berlin-beheading-ritual-killing

Rather than banning self-defense. How about, when you catch someone using weapons in a robbery, that you give them tougher sentences. Wouldn't that accomplish your goals?  As you said "fear of being caught" will curtail armed crime.

Now, let's go further. The US is going through a cultural revolution analogous to what happened in China during the 1960s.  The left has these periods of insanity and we're seeing it play out here in the US.

Why should I disarm?

Just my opinion but I feel that’s an incredibly naive and over simplistic view, criminals aren’t just going to be scared of guns or dead they’ll just tool up for the job and shoot first. Don’t get me wrong I’m certainly not against firearm ownership as that would be hypocritical just the more guns the safer you are is a provable fallacy.

Edit, just for a successful recent European resistance against govenment “slavery”: The absolute fuckery caused by the yellow vest movement without a shot fired beginning 2018 France. If that population was armed imagine the bloodshed, it only takes one ND or unstable person to result in armed conflict.

^^^ By suggesting living on the frontier, it seems that you don't really understand where I am coming from. Your following paragraph shows that you don't understand the whole idea behind weapons in the first place.

Implement over a 5-year period, the requirement that every adult must wear a firearm in the open when off his residence property, and crime will dry up... because criminals fear guns... or will be dead

It's the chickenhearted people, being pushed by people who want to take over America and the world, that are pushing for gun control. The last thing we need is to lose our gun rights, because we will become slaves of the police, the military, and the government if we do.

Check out the history of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao for proof of what happens.

I understand and get where the American culture and identity of firearms comes from but you’re not living on the frontier now, and the times of having a armed civilian militia for the benefit of invasion defence has long passed since at the very latest August 6 1945.

There is no denying firearm ownership on the scale of the USA is detrimental to society and public saftey, the issue is, the opportunity to have reasonable discourse on the subject has long passed. Defence of property or family is not a valid argument to have a firearm if firearms are not commonly held (which they are in the USA) Because you defend your property with firearms anyone willing to rob or steal will have to be armed themselves which creates lethal conflict in a shoot first of get shot scenario, and in states with the death penalty if you’re the one getting shot first your family’s future could be pretty bleak.

There is absolutely no reasonable argument for almost unrestricted firearm ownership when that freedom means more school children have been killed in mass shootings in the USA than any mass killing including terror attacks in the whole of Europe in the last decade. How can one begin to defend that?

The idea of having weapons or not in the USA, doesn't stem from focusing on the weapons or having weapons. It focuses on the right to private property.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean anything. It exists as a double check on government messing with people's rights to this specific kind of property. But even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there, the people would still have the right to their private property, be it weapons or anything else.

Private property is an instictive thing among Americans. Guns are simply an important part of private property.

Get off my property. Check out private membership associations to see that the people are showing government all their own laws and court cases that state right in government that government is to keep hands off my private property.

In a country such as the UK where police are not routinely armed I don’t think relaxing restrictions on firearms is a wise idea. Culturally the UK is vastly different to the USA and with an unarmed police force the vast majority of crimes are committed without firearms and those that are happen between gangs without affecting the general public.

If the general population were armed, the police would also have to be armed leading to an arms race with criminals stemming from the fear of armed confrontation where currently there is no real fear of being killed. As a population in the UK there is no real want or need for relaxation of gun laws. Anyone can own a shotgun and the police firearms officer has to have a reason not to issue one, usually a criminal record or history of mental health issues, obvious red flags. Yet the vast majority wouldn’t ever concider applying for a shotgun certificate. Single shot bolt action magazine fed rifles of any calibre or .22 rim fire semi auto are available to anyone who can show good reason for owning one i.e member of a rifle club and have signatures from club chairs supporting your application or pest control with restrictions on what you plan on using for example you won’t get a .308 for rat control. A strange difference between USA laws and UK laws is suppressors, where in the UK they are freely available and encouraged as to keep noise disruption down.

Handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre which in all honesty was a good decision as despite the illegal holding of guns and import of weapons by gangs from Eastern Europe defenceless children have not been killed by a nutcase by firearm since, something the USA collectively should hang its head in shame about. I understand as a country the USA is too far gone in terms of gun ownership as the cat is out of the bag in terms of being able to control it. However if criminals did not fear getting shot then they wouldn’t carry guns and the UK and Europe are living proof of that regarding public saftey.

Gun control in the USA as most posters in here seem to be residents then, probably your only way forward are your current rights with maybe stricter checks on mental health although from what I understand most sales are not retail. You’re in a very fucked situation, a situation I couldn’t even begin to think of how to resolve and I’d assume neither does anyone else. All I can say with absolute certainty is an armed population does not make you safer despite how it may fee subjectively.

Edit, just a little extra view on the death penalty:  I think for certain crimes the death penalty should be concidered although I’m of the opinion there are fates worse than death. However, the scary thing about the death penalty and crime is, if you commit a crime where you stand a chance of being put to death what do you have to lose by potentially ending lives that could convict you in the chance you can get away?

Edit 2:Regarding an unarmed population and being able to resist control of the government, in the UK the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen not any political party largely removing the need for armed insurrection, even so, I have a fair few soldiers as close friends and given orders to turn their weapons on their own country men it just wouldn’t happen and the ones that did would rapidly be turned on. Regardless weapons wouldn’t stop your financial assets being removed from you by a malevolent government and the united populations weapons would rapidly be turned on each other when it comes to survival.

The only way to ban weapons in society, is to ban freedom. Why? Because there will always be people who will find/make/use weapons... even if they are only meal utensils... forks, spoons and table knives.

When we make really good AI robots, we can wrap all people in straitjackets, and the robots will feed us, wipe out rear ends, and do everything else for us that we need. And none of us will be able to harm anyone else.

Or we can put everybody on LSD so that they are too high to make weapons (or anything else) and society will stagnate. Dig out the 1968 movie Wild in the Streets to see what happened when this was done.

But it will take weapons to force everybody into the robot system or the LSD system. Will the people who use the weapons to force everybody into subjection, lay down their weapons after it is done? Check out the history of Stalin, Hitler, and especially Mao Tse-tung, to see if this is what would happen, and how things played out when the weapons were gone from the masses.

I feel it is better to ban weapons in our society , in order to guard against abuse of it use, crime rate can be minimize, as arm robbers to will be weary of using the weapon for the fear of been caught, the advantage outweigh the disadvantage, Trust is good but control is better.